Good grief.

It this the nineteen-fifties again?

Will teen magazines start carrying articles on how to "get" a guy?

(Show interest in what *he* is interested in!)

or, as Dusty Springfield famously sang,

"Wear your hair just for him,

Do the things he likes to do"...

sorry, got distracted.

Although I realize that, in the real world, sometimes "fudging" just the only expedient thing to do or the only way to get out of a situation without losing something you care about, the thought that I would have to resort to "sly psychology" to get a partner/roommate/co-worker/anybody else on the planet to do his/her share of the work would make me question the value of the relationship & think about my alternatives.

If you have to manage someone to get him to pick up after himself & pay bills, you may need to stop & think: Do you have a partner or a dependent child?

Take care of yourself.

Happily married for 20+ years here. I respect my husband far too much to try to manipulate him. I am willing to make a case for something I feel strongly about, but ultimately, if he doesn't agree, then I'll yield. This is a conscious choice I've made, as a Christian woman, to yield to my husband as head of our family. It may not be fashionably feminist, but I'd rather be happy than in charge. And my willingness to surrender—cheerfully and supportively—to the outcome of my husband's choices has given him a deep respect for my perspective and insights.

So no, there are no Lucy and Ethel schemes my friends and I concoct against our men. I just try to honor and respect my husband best as I can, and I am cherished in return.

ETA: As I reread your primary grievances against your husband, I want to add that there is no reason not to have a discussion about the importance of paying bills on time, as well as to discuss chores that are being neglected. Perhaps you need to come to a new agreement about division of household chores and who pays bills. And you might consider that some things, like messy bathrooms and dirty laundry that never quite makes it to the hamper, might not be a battle worth fighting. Be his sainted wife who always picks up after him with a smile...it couldn't hurt!

It's disturbing that you refer to women's rights as a matter of "fashion" & that you equate the lack of women's rights with Christianity.

Women's rights are human rights, the ability of women to generate enough income to feed themselves & their children, the freedom from being beaten, raped, shot, scalded, cut (google "female genital mutilation" & try to fit *that* into the frivolous idea of "fashion"), the right to be free from subjugation, forced marriage, including child marriage, the right to self-ownership rather than slavery...so many core rights & necessities...& the exercise of these rights & the support for them is in no way not Christian.

ps: Being the sainted wife who picks up a man's dirty clothes "with a smile" will guarantee that you'll spend your life picking up a man's dirty clothes.

Sylvia, I've seen your comments before. You strike me as a very no-nonsense kind of gal, and a tough cookie (in the best sense of that phrase). But please note that at no point do I refer to women's rights...merely to feminism. Nor do I ever equate Christianity to a lack of rights. In fact, where Christianity thrives, the status of women is elevated. It was Jesus who defended Mary for her choice to sit amongst the disciples, having chosen the "better portion" than Martha, who chose to resentfully serve in the kitchen rather than learn and worship at her Savior's side. It was Jesus who reached out compassionately to the bleeding woman to heal her, and defend her from those who scolded her for touching His hem. It was Jesus who did the shockingly unthinkable (in His day), to address the woman at the well, to speak truth to her, and to reveal Himself to her as the Messiah. And it was Jesus who rescued a woman about to be stoned for adultery, challenging the men that he who was without sin should cast the first stone.

What I was speaking about is not negating my human rights or dignity as a woman, but of biblical submission to the headship of one's husband. It is an acknowledgment that every ship needs a captain who has final authority. I am my husband's second-in-command, his first mate, his executive officer. He depends on my ability to carry out my responsibilities, without his having to micromanage me. He also depends on my input, as I must apprise him of conditions to which he may not be aware. Once the captain has all the relevant information, he must choose the direction of our ship. It is not my job to flatter, nag, guilt-trip, or otherwise trick my captain into running his ship differently. I accepted his offer of a lifetime on board with him, in rough waters and smooth, to familiar ports of call as well as through uncharted waters. I wouldn't have signed on if he were a foolish, cruel, or incompetent commander.

I know biblical submission is a hard concept to grasp in our times, even by those who acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

P.S. Being a wife who cheerfully smiles as she picks up her husband's dirty clothes only means while I'm bending over to pick up my captain's socks and pants, he's smiling right back at me as he takes my car in to get its oil changed, replaces the burned out bulbs I hate climbing on a ladder to change, and rubs my muscles when they get sore. Interdependence and a mutual desire to make each other happy is a beautiful thing.

P.P.S. Are you married? If so, how long? Has it been a joyful journey? I offer these as rhetorical questions, because I suspect many women who hold an either/or outlook on marital equality (i.e., either women must have identical power status in marriage or we face being beaten down and tyrannized) are not necessarily women who have been very successful in finding lifelong happiness in marriage.

I'm not married,but have been with SO for years. I don't manipulate him to do what he's supposed to do. But we have an unspoken understanding about who does what and where to draw the line. For example, I do all the laundry. But I'm not going around the house picking up dirty clothes. You're a grown man, if you want them washed you put them in the laundry basket. He takes the trash out, and I'm not going to leave papers and bottles or whatever else laying around the house for him to gather before he takes it out. I'm a grown woman, and can put trash in the can. He has learned not to offer unsolicited cooking and cleaning advice, and I won't tell him how to maintain the yard or house. If I ask him to do something, I don't tell him how to do it and vice versa.

I can see both sides of the submission to your man thing. I tend to let him have his way except for a few things that are absolutely unacceptable for me. More examples...

I don't like people staying at my house. Period. I don't like it at all I don't care who it is or why they need to stay there. To me it's an invasion that I can't tolerate. I don't like staying at other people's homes either, I'm incredibly uncomfortable,even with family that I love dearly and who INSIST that I stay at their home, not a nice hotel. He doesnt mind people staying over and doesnt see the big deal. This truly is the biggest source of contention that we have ever had. But now we have an understanding. If he were to overrule me and have someone staying at our home, he would either be by himself with his precious houseguest or would pay more than dearly for making me so miserable. So he has,for lack of a better word, submitted to my desires on that issue.

On the other hand, he makes most of the other big decisions, mostly because except for the one thing i explained above, I am pretty flexible. He chose the house we just moved to, he decides what changes to make to the house and how to do it and when,etc.

Bottom line, to me anyway, is respect. Nagging is disrespectful and annoying, not to mention completly ineffective to a man, and beneath a woman. You should know before you commit to someone if they are done being raised and accept certain responsibilities as a part of life. If you are not on the same level as someone, you are signing yourself up for a life of frustration and eventually,resentment.

"Feminism" & "women's rights" are synonyms.

"but of biblical submission to the headship of one's husband. It is an acknowledgment that every ship needs a captain who has final authority"

When a wife is more smart and competent ( let's face it, there are plenty less capable husbands in real world), could she be "the captain of the family" or does she always have to "have the willingness to surrender—cheerfully and supportively—to the outcome of her husband's choices "?

How would she live if she lost her Captain?

What sylvia said is not only women's rights, it is human's rights. It is so unfair to place that much burden on men only because the type of women BB Galore described are too inapt to carry their own weight, and they hide their laziness behind the name of "biblical submission".

I serious doubt many men and women in this era would think the type of marriage BB Galore promoted is a "joyful journey". At least not in our own family including my 90 years old mother.

Azmom, you might be smarter and more competent than your husband. You may be the primary decision-maker and leader of your household. You and your husband may both be happy with that arrangement. I won't discount your own happiness if that is the life you claim to have achieved. Too bad you're so quick to dismiss women like me as inept and lazy; considering your contempt, it seems unlikely you actually know any such women.

Ultimately, it is the fruits we yield that matter. After nearly 2 1/2 decades of marriage, my husband and I are still very much in love with each other. We rejoice that the love and affection which permeates our household is the blueprint our children will use to secure happiness in their own marriages some day. I hope you know such joy in your own marriage, and are now witnessing the fruits of what you have modeled for your own children.

I am the original poster of this thread. Well, I asked for your opinions and you gave them. Thank you all very much. I suggest we lay this discussion to rest, since there are obviously as many points of view as here are marriage relationships and what works for you, well, go with it. I don't think anybody will change anybody else's mind and let's just retire this while it is still civil and respectful, ok? Thanks again.

BB Galore,

You did not answer the questions I asked.

Please discussing issues/subjects by principles and in general. I believe you know It is totally irrelevant to the topics by getting into personal details, such as asking Sylvia's martial status, and assume relationship balance/status in my household.

For decades us women/men are promoting personal choices, equality, growth, cooperation and communication for/between genders at both workplace and home.

The approaches you promoted based on your religious belief are irresponsible that handicap both genders to say the least.

mizscarlett,

Thank you for allowing me to post my last opinons for this thread.

i don't believe that BBGalore's 'approaches based upon her religious beliefs are irresponsible or handicap both genders' at all. Rather, they create a path to harmony and celebrate the wonder of God's plan and the unique and valuable differences between men and women. Great job, BB. You wrote eloquently of what many other happy Christian couples live every day.

so women who disagree with subservience to a husband must be single & therefore unhappy because they can't get or keep a husband & therefore they're just hollering "sour grapes"?

& I really like this too, as a fine example of a passive-aggressive insult:

'You and your husband may both be happy with that arrangement. I won't discount your own happiness if that is the life you claim to have achieved.'

very generous to "not discount" someone else's happiness while questioning her honesty ("you claim...").

Good grief.

'But please note that at no point do I refer to women's rights...merely to feminism.'

Women's rights and feminism are one and the same thing.

The only reason that you have any rights as a woman is due to the others who came before you.

"The only reason that you have any rights as a woman is due to the others who came before you."

You'll forgive me if I decline to thank second wave feminists for the "rights" they bring to the table. Women in combat. Abortion on demand. Sexual promiscuity. No-fault divorce. Widespread out-of-wedlock childbirth. I'm sure there are women who think those things are terrific, but what is truly arrogant and sexist is the feminist presumption that all women should want these things.

"so women who disagree with subservience to a husband must be single & therefore unhappy because they can't get or keep a husband & therefore they're just hollering 'sour grapes'?"

Clearly, my efforts to explain the concept of biblical submission to one's husband has failed to cut through the cultural biases many women have. That's okay. But does the happiness and marital success of women offering marital advice really matter? Absolutely.

I'm sure many people have a natural tendency to accept the advice that is most palatable to them, whether or not it works. It's like seeking advice on a diet: I wouldn't trust the person weighing 250 pounds telling me how to lose weight, but many folks would, if the diet they suggested sounded more to their liking than the alternative offered by someone who is fit and lean.

If what you are doing is working well in your marriage, then good for you. If not, why are you counseling others to pursue the same path?

Well said coleenoz.

BB:

Women in combat: Woman join the armed forces by choice, as a way to serve their country and advance their lives. This wasn't always possible and the women who do so should be commended, not shamed into thinking they are unfeminine or unchristian because they're not happy to let the menfolk handle everything while they stay home and scrub his underwear.

Abortion on demand: Some people think abortion is an mortal sin and unforgivable. To those I say, don't get one. A woman's body is her own, not property of the government or her husband,as it once was considered to be by law. Or are you opposed because the demand is presumably made by women only? (NOT TRUE many a man will happily tote their girlfriends and wives to the clinic, whether she is willing or not...is that okay, or is it still all her fault? ) Is sex on demand from man to woman okay? Is beating her into submission okay? Because it used to be, both by law and by unspoken societal rules. Only very recently did the law recognize that a married woman can in fact be raped by her husband. In other,less informed parts of the world, rape is solely the womans fault. Does this fit into your values?

What about other women's health issues? If I want to go get my birth control pills, do you feel I should be required to present my doctor and pharmacist with a marriage license and a notarized note from my husband (if I had one) saying that I have his permission to obtain it or be denied?

Sexual promiscuity: Again, what a woman does with her own parts are her business. And do you object to the widespread sexual promiscuity of men? Or are they exempt from all moral rules because they are the boss of us? Or is it because they don't have to deal with the stigma of any out of wedlock children (who are still children of God,and deserve love AND respect, not judgement, like it or not)or abortion?

No fault divorce: Uhhhhh...what? My guess is in your belief if a marriage doesn't work it is the wife's fault? No fault is the most painless way to end a marriage. Or would you have both parties of said failed marriage suffer in a loveless union forever after? Is this what God wants? I am grateful that women have the option for divorce without facing certain ruin.

I am very happy that you are living your life just how you want to. I admire that in people. I am very sad that you look down from your high horse at other women who do so if they don't live it as you do. Perhaps some would benefit better from the Good Book if they spent time learning it's meaning,not beating people over the head with it.

'You'll forgive me if I decline to thank second wave feminists for the "rights" they bring to the table. Women in combat. Abortion on demand. Sexual promiscuity. No-fault divorce. Widespread out-of-wedlock childbirth. I'm sure there are women who think those things are terrific, but what is truly arrogant and sexist is the feminist presumption that all women should want these things.'

I'm not talking about 'second wave feminists'. I'm talking of the Suffragettes. We owe them such a lot.

But if you don't understand, maybe you have been so indoctrinated that you would blow a gasket if something were to tweak.

Blowing a gasket may seem too aggressive for a woman in such a state of grace. Perhaps she would simply have a fit of the vapors......

And to answer the original question: No. I prefer to be a partner, rather than parent to my significant other.

Good answer, Errant. It reeks of emotional blackmail anyhow, this management business.

My tread is truly hijacked at this point. Can we just all take a breath?

I'm new to this forum and forums in general. Have read the question asked by mizscarlett2001. Forgive me for continuing after your "tread is,,,hijacked" but I have this comment. As long as management of one's spouse or partner isn't overdone it is part of life in one way or another. Ain't no way in the world that a spouse can know everything so a gentle nudge or appropriate"management" is part of life. I've been married 54 years. And believe me it's gone both ways over those years.

Finally! A common sense answer. Thank you. I also want to say - this thread is a prime example of why people don't want to post here anymore. People just pile on and rant. From our government to this little thread, people are so polarized now, We will never progress or unite as women if we keep attacking each other.

Also, I have changed my post name from Scarlett2010 to Beverly Hills as an update.

Hello Beverly Hills

Isn't That the way it is? In any relationship or discussion a good, healthy dose of common sense can make things work. Common sense allows for discussion of a matter with both, or all three sides contributing beneficial input. Taking things to an extreme can mess up any relationship or discussion.

In any relationship there is a healthy give and take. No husband or wife is always right or sees everything that can be done to make a marriage work. Two personalities brought together requires give and take for the relationship/marriage to develop to it's full potential. this may require some "management" where one is weak and the other is stronger. You apparently are stronger in a given area(s) than your husband and have to "carry him along" to make your marriage work at it's best. To carry it too far would be unhealthy manipulation, taking advantage of him to his hurt,

Someone earlier mentioned feminism. In some ways feminism has been beneficial to society in general and marriage in particular. But taken to the extreme feminism creates a combativeness and contention. In a good sense women's role in the home and in society has been recognized and elevated.. Taken too far it has husbands and wives fighting instead of being supportive of each other; creates manipulation instead of a healthy tension or maybe management in an area where it is needed.

Well, maybe I'm getting too wordy and besides I'm running out of time.

Everybody is sometimes manipulative, I sometimes "trick" my wife into doing the grocery, but she would have done it anyways if I would have asked it friendly. :)

She probably would have, Alexander. But had you asked her in a friendly way, she would have got some enjoyment from pleasing you.

Lets face it girls, marriage sucks! I would never get married again. Too much trouble for too little return!